40 Comments below |

Anyone who has worked in market research will tell you it is not too difficult to get the results you want by the design of the questionaire and the wording of the questions.

Those who responded that the Media is to “blame” might have been thinking, Yes that’s where I get my information from! And perhaps they believe what they read most of the time. Islam makes its followers, believe, do and say many things, that annoy, puzzle or repulse non-Muslims

It will be interesting to see if there were further questions designed to probe what people meant by their answers. I doubt it.

Also, I think this quote from a Muslim journalist is relevant:

“I think the press has been pretty fair to Muslims. They don’t really need to stitch people up, they do a good enough job of that themselves. My view is Muslims have got to address issues themselves, things like anti-semitism and homophobia that seem to be unchangeable within Muslim communities. As far as I’m concerned newspapers just report them as they are.” (Journalist B, p242)

Pointing the Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media, Edited by Julian Petley and Robin Richardson. Published by Oneworld Publications, 2011.

“Islam makes its followers, believe, do and say many things, that annoy, puzzle or repulse non-Muslims”

Everybody around the entire globe believes, does and says things that would annoy, puzzle or repulse others. The whole point about current Islamophobia is that, just as you have done, Muslims are treated as if they have a cache on this, and nobody else does.

That quote from ‘Journalist B’ is disingenuous. Newspapers don’t just report incidents of homophobia and anti-semitism, they treat them as problems endemic in Muslims and not as something that affects society as a whole.

And please – the idea that all Muslims are homophobic and anti-semitic, and this is “unchangeable”, is BS.

Many of them (not all) believe torturing (stoning) a woman to death for adultery is OK, you need four witnesses to prove rape, death for apostasy, it should be easy for a man to divorce but very difficult for a woman, democracy is OK as long as they are in charge, they can ignore rules that apply to everyone else (stunning large animals before bleeding them to death), freedom of speech is fine as long as you don’t criticise Islam, etc., etc.

“Which one of the following groups, if any, do you think is most to blame for Islamophobia, fear of Islam, in the UK?”

I fear extremism. I fear racism. I fear bigotry. I fear supremacism. I fear misogyny. I fear sectarianism.

Islam doesn’t have a monopoly of these fearful things. They manifest in many different shades and ideologies and origins.

I think we have to guard carefully against demonisation of any single community or religion when it comes to addressing these issues.

But I don’t think it helps to be proportionate about it when you demonise any kind of reasonable scrutiny or criticism of a religious ideology by describing every type of it as a ‘phobia’

I am a rational person who can differentiate between the hysteria of the Daily Mail on the one hand, and the problems that some types of Islamic interpretations create in terms of freedom and equality.

Every piece of criticism should have the caveat and warning against demonisation and give counterexamples.

Similarly, playing the ‘Islamophobia’ card in every discussion is totally wrong too.

By the way, the irony is that this poll was commissioned by the Ahmaddiya community, who face more discrimination, violence and persecution around the world, by Muslims, than possibly any other group.

It is a multifaceted persecution, taking place on state level in Pakistan, on a clerical, theological level, and has resulted in regular violence against Ahmaddiyas, and has also manifested in bigotry towards Ahmaddiya in Britain too.

This is something to worry about deeply. This is something to ‘fear’ too.

I do wonder if the general public are in a position to judge the full picture. I’m certainly not, as the general media doesn’t do a good job on analysis. It’s either shock horror stuff about ”Captain Hook” and half of muslims supporting stoning for adultery …. or very little.

Many people won’t even look at HP because they don’t like the website in the first place.
But if you don’t at least inform your self a bit, you can end up being as clued-up as Douglas Clark.

It’s obvious there are few reputable Tom Watson like investigative journalists on the case of such extremists … and I think the whole issue gets whitewashed a bit on Pickled Politics. Where Anwar al Awlaki being banned from the UK gets mixed up in ”whataboutery” about Geert Wilders and free speech.
And as for Khalid Yasin, he just slips by unnoticed.

If people were to watch that Austrialian half hour investigative programme about Khalid Yasin linked to in that HP article, and then were asked whether they thought people like him being popular in mainstream muslim quaters could lead to islamophobia, then you would have a whole different set of figures for your surveys I think.

You just have to look at what is going on Norway at the moment to see why some Muslims have an issue with the media.

A terrorist attack is described on the television news channels as a massacre and not a ‘terrorist attack’ or , perpertrated by a ‘deranged madman’, who just so happens to have links to far right and Christian groups. He’s not described as a Christian terrorist.

It is depressing that a lot of people share this sort of mindset which allows terrorists and mass murderers to define the belief of millions of people. Does it matter one bit what this man says?

What this man did in Norway was an act of terrorism, with the same level of psychosis as the ones that committed the terrorist attacks in 7/7. You got to be a fool to rationalise their motivations, religions, or whatnot – in both instances, they killed indiscriminately, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

Unfortunately, the terrorists of 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London July, London West End Car bomb, Glasgow Airport, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, etc., all sought justification and comfort for what they did from their religion.

Two of these attacks were aimed at night clubs packed with westerners and the others were western targets and largely made up of Christians. What they did was welcomed in some parts of the Muslim world. Some of the attacks were obviously supported by Islamic organisations who boasted about their involvement.

As Sunny Hundal is saying as I type, on Sky News, the guy acted because he wanted to protect Judeo-Christian heritage in Europe. That makes him a religious fundo, if the television media are being consistent.

LibertyPhile, the sick Norwegian individual will also seek justification and comfort for what he did in the works of such exemplary people such as Geert Wilders, the EDL, the BNP and every other right-wing group out there in Europe. The media has aided and abetted the “Multiculturalism/Eurabia” narrative since 9/11 and before it (to a lesser extent), and is arguably complicit in creating an environment of fear and hate.

Also, most right-wing sites have in the first batch of responses comments along the lines of “I would have understood it if he targeted a mosque”.

So kindly, take your bs and scram. Don’t pretend that the media is not such a huge factor in all this, because it is.

So did the 7/7 and 9/11, and all terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda all over the world – they killed fellow Muslims. Furthermore, all of them thought they were doing the right thing, and had a manifesto explaining why they were doing it.

Also, most right-wing sites have in the first batch of responses comments along the lines of “I would have understood it if he targeted a mosque”.

That’s not surprising. The target of much hate from the extreme-right (of the stormfront kind) is not so much foreign influence in Western countries (non-whites in particular, Muslims or Jews in general depending on how much neo-nazi they are) but those that allow them to enter in the first place – that would be the political establishment, which they consider to be race/nation traitors deserving of capital punishment. Which explains why the Norwegian targeted a political camp and government buildings. This is no different than Al Qaeda, who also sees the Arab political establishment as traitors.

He is not using Christianity as a justification for his actions, he is not backed by or had any support from any Christian organisation, well-funded or not, there are no Christian clergymen (or scholars) praising him.

We are yet to see, but his gross hatred of multiculturalism and Muslims might be more akin to Nazism (a very Judeo-Christian belief system!!)

Most of time, most of the media, give a fair picture of what is going on in this country and the world. Muslims do and say a lot of things that non-Muslims don’t like. Blaming the media just doesn’t wash.

The GLA study of the media commissioned by Ken Livingstone is often quoted as proof of media culpability. If you read the study you will find that the Guardian carried as a proportion, as many negative stories about Islam and Muslims as the rest of the press. (That is the Guardian newspaper, a well known liberal platform for those who want to explain or justify what Muslims do and say.) And, believe it or not, the paper with the highest proportion of positive stories was the Daily Express!

You might also consider the Muslim journalist I quoted above @1

“I think the press has been pretty fair to Muslims. They don’t really need to stitch people up, they do a good enough job of that themselves. My view is Muslims have got to address issues themselves, things like anti-semitism and homophobia that seem to be unchangeable within Muslim communities. As far as I’m concerned newspapers just report them as they are.” (Journalist B, p242)

the guy acted because he wanted to protect Judeo-Christian heritage in Europe. That makes him a religious fundo,

Agreed. His manifesto repeatedly includes numerous explicitly Christian references, both religious and historical, in order to justify his actions; he even claims to be a modern-day version of a Knight Templar. His “diary” notes leading up to the attack also make it very clear that he believed himself to be on a divine mission condoned by God.

the sick Norwegian individual will also seek justification and comfort for what he did in the works of such exemplary people such as Geert Wilders, the EDL,

He already does. He supports Wilders in particular; it’s also turned out that he’s been involved in “strategy discussions” with members of the EDL, with both parties agreeing on the need to engage in violence in order to deliberately escalate the situation, with the cynical aim of deliberately provoking a violent counter-response from Muslims.

So did the 7/7 and 9/11, and all terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda all over the world – they killed fellow Muslims.

Agreed. In fact, on 9/11, AQ destroyed two mosques within the North and South Towers of the World Trade Centre and murdered any Muslims who were inside at the time (along with numerous other ordinary Muslims who were killed during the rest of the attack, including American Muslims who were part of the New York-based rescue teams). Not to mention the tens of thousands of Pakistani Muslims who have been murdered by Islamist terrorists during the past decade alone.

And let’s not forget the major attack on Mumbai a couple of years ago — which, of course, included gunmen slaughtering civilians just like the atrocity in Norway. Mumbai has a sizeable Muslim population and a number of them were killed in that attack too; India itself has the third largest Muslim population in the world. Furthermore, Indian Muslim religious leaders were so disgusted with what had occurred that they even refused to allow the bodies of the terrorists to be buried on Indian soil.

That Muslims were killed in the atrocities I mentioned, 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London July, London West End Car bomb, Glasgow Airport, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, etc., doesn’t alter the fact that the targets were all deliberately and overwhelmingly western and Christian. There were probably even some unfortunate Muslims at the Bali night club with alcoholic drinks in their hands.

@jamal

If he had been Muslim I would have called him a Muslim terrorist because it is a well know fact that such terrorism is condoned by some Muslims (not a trivial minority), that there are well funded Muslim organisations behind such terrorism who boast about their involvement, that it (the deliberate slaughter of innocent bystanders) is condoned and even lauded by some Muslim preachers and scholars. There is no Christian equivalent.

The brown men up north with Muslim sounding names, who groomed young girls, were described as Muslim gangs by some sections of the main stream media. We have other such instances of crime purportrated by people with Muslim sounding names, but the media describe them as “muslim men” as though it was their ‘muslimness’ that led to them carrying out the crimes.

Do you think this is fair seeing as though you’ve said yourself, if the act were not orchastrated in the name of an ideology/religion/belief, they shouldn’t be called paedophile/rape gang/criminal of that ideology/religion/belief?

What we see in the media is brown men/women who have Muslim names, who carry out criminal acts are called Muslim as though it was their Islam which led them to carry out these criminal acts. Whereas when it’s a blonde/ginger haired man named Paul/Peter/John it’s not called a Christian man, although he’s named after the writers of the Christian Gospel.

Do you see the inconsistency there? Further more do you see what it leads to when the likes of EDL take on this kind of reporting and we have people talking of “Muslamic rape gangs” (other than funny youtube remixes)? Do you understand why some Muslims have an issue with the media?

Wrong, the man is a Nazi. Just like the Oklahama bomber, McVeigh whose one favorite book was The Turner Diaries, written by former American Nazi Party honcho William L. Pierce, under the pen name Andrew Macdonald.

It was the same with Copeland, the nail bomber, who set off three bombs over the course of two weeks designed to kill and seriously injure London’s gay, Asian and black communities. Sixty-three people were injured by bombs he set off in Brick Lane and Brixton, but the final and most devastating incident took place in Soho, the heart of London’s gay scene. In that attack, three people, including a pregnant woman, were killed and 79 were injured.

He was also a Nazi, an ex-member of the Nazi BNP. In 2007, when he appealed against his sentence of 50 years, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge said: “It is difficult to exaggerate the horror of these appalling crimes, which stemmed, as far as we can see, from the appellant’s abhorrent beliefs. Having reflected on this awful case, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.”

The judge talked about, ‘ appellant’s abhorrent beliefs’ NOT that he was ‘a lone deranged psychopath.’

So, please stop trying to play this game of always trying to minimize when its white Nazi terrorists who try to draw the ultimate conclusions of the policies advocated by the likes of the EDL and the BNP, while trying to blame whole of the Islamic community for some vile acts perpetrated by some terrorists who are Muslim.

From what has been discovered so far I would liken him to a Nazi as I suggested above. Perhaps if you want a label “Nazi terrorist” is the most meaningful.

@THResident @jamal

But he is not a Christian terrorist. Certainly not in the sense that some terrorists are called Muslim terrorists.

It is a sad but true fact, terrorism is condoned by some Muslims (not a trivial minority), that there are well funded Muslim organisations and movements behind such terrorism who boast about their involvement, even have staffed and funded training camps, that it (the deliberate slaughter of innocent bystanders) is condoned and even lauded by some Muslim preachers and scholars, that their religion (as interpreted by them and their sympathisers) gives them reward in the after-life for what they do. There is no Christian equivalent.

In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to call such a terrorist a Muslim terrorist.

@ Sarah AB

He may well have emailed, even met like minded people, but I doubt very much that there is any form of organisation behind him. He is a psycho and will also show-off. Just look at the unreality of what he says he is trying to do.

That Muslims were killed in the atrocities I mentioned, 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London July, London West End Car bomb, Glasgow Airport, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, etc., doesn’t alter the fact that the targets were all deliberately and overwhelmingly western and Christian.

It also doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the targets of AQ and AQ-affiliated groups worldwide have been non-western and non-Christian, with the vast majority of those victims being Muslims.

Whereas when it’s a blonde/ginger haired man named Paul/Peter/John it’s not called a Christian man, although he’s named after the writers of the Christian Gospel.

Correct. And in the case of the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, as mentioned in #23, his manifesto explicitly and repeatedly cites his so-called Christian beliefs as a justification for his ideology and his associated actions. Furthermore, not only is he obsessed with the Crusades (an era during which, let’s not forget, the demonisation and slaughter of Muslims was forcefully endorsed by multiple Popes, with the promise of reward in the afterlife), but his “resurrected” Knights Templar group deliberately includes founding members representing various European Christian denominations (listed in his manifesto), and he explicitly states that he and his allies are engaged in what is effectively a Christian holy war. To make matters even worse, his manifesto states that killing more than 60,000 white British people and more than a million people in Europe as a whole would be an acceptable course of action for fellow Christians involved in this “crusade”.

In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to call a terrorist a Christian terrorist. Unless one objects to the term for the same reason that people may object to the term “Muslim terrorist” (as opposed to “Islamist terrorist”), in which case I suppose “Christianist terrorist” would be the appropriate equivalent. Of course, there are going to be people out there who will claim that Islamist terrorists are “real Muslims” whereas Christianist terrorists are “not real Christians”, but you know what agenda they’re pushing.

The man is a lone deranged psychopath….He may well have emailed, even met like minded people, but I doubt very much that there is any form of organisation behind him.

That’s for the intelligence services and the relevant police authorities to investigate and subsequently confirm or refute. I doubt very much that they would abandon their efforts by deferring to the dubious wisdom of an apologist anonymously commenting on Pickled Politics and hypocritically making sanctimonious references to Christianity whilst attempting to exploit this tragedy as a platform to promote his own religious bigotry.

It tells you a great deal about the mentality of such individuals if their reaction to the murder of nearly a hundred people (the majority of them children) by a racist & religiously fanatical far-right Norwegian terrorist is to go onto the internet and opportunistically write multiple posts denigrating Islam and Muslims, echoing the terrorist’s own propaganda and justification for his actions. The irony is that absolutely nobody on this thread had made derogatory remarks about Christians or Christianity, despite Breivik’s horrific actions in the latter’s name, and only the most bigoted type of hatemonger would do so.

Regardless of their transparent attempts at obfuscation and denial, it is clear that certain cynical individuals are more than happy to opportunistically promote Breivik’s agenda of hatred whilst disingenuously claiming to condemn him. The wiser course of action would have been to simply express sympathy for the victims and/or condemn Breivik, and leave matters at that, but the confirmed tendency of people with a certain bigoted mentality to be unable to restrain themselves from expressing their bigotry regardless of the situation means that the mask always drops. Always.

“It also doesn’t alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the targets of AQ and AQ-affiliated groups worldwide have been non-western and non-Christian, with the vast majority of those victims being Muslims.”

What atrocities are you referring to? And what difference do they make? It just shows how dedicated that branch of Islam is to mindless slaughter.

There are no Christian precedents in modern times for what he has done.

In contrast Islam has many precedents, and polls and surveys (which were the original topic of this post) show that many Muslims believe such acts of terrorism are justified (even if you personally don’t).

“The irony is that absolutely nobody on this thread had made derogatory remarks about Christians or Christianity …. “.

I’m glad you have this opportunity to air your views, but please pay attention. The starting point of this sub-thread is @11 asking why he wasn’t called a Christian terrorist and my response to that.

The starting point of this sub-thread is @11 asking why he wasn’t called a Christian terrorist and my response to that.

Breivik is now being called a Christian terrorist and variations such as Christian extremist, Christian fundamentalist etc by the media right across the board, including the most right-wing British newspapers. Do try to keep up. I can appreciate that it must be embarrassing for you to have been caught out either deliberately lying about Breivik’s repeated Christian references or being grossly ignorant of his assertions in his manifesto, but resorting to increasingly desperate efforts to obfuscate the fact doesn’t exactly do much for your own credibility.

There are no Christian precedents in modern times for what he has done.

That’s highly debatable. And even if one believes that there are indeed no such precedents, there certainly is one now, thanks to Breivik. Congratulations for being part of the same ideological group which encouraged his hatred of Islam and Muslims and has now resulted in dozens of deaths.

And I have no intention of taking the bait by making derogatory remarks about Christians, Christianity, or any associated incriminatory evidence relating to either modern times or historical events. I don’t feel the need to prove my own religious credentials by denigrating other religions and their adherents, even if you do.

many Muslims believe such acts of terrorism are justified (even if you personally don’t).

I am a member of a major world religion, but it’s not Islam. The automatic assumption that I am a Muslim speaks volumes about your own mentality.

As does the following statement:

What atrocities are you referring to? And what difference do they make?

The scale of ignorance and obsessive bigotry on your part is damning in the extreme. Very little else needs to be said; the mask has now well and truly dropped. Your own words throughout this thread have betrayed you, “LibertyPhile”.

In conclusion, as I mentioned in #33, this is yet another textbook example of someone superficially attempting to distance himself from the Christian terrorist Breivik whilst duplicating his religious bigotry and continuing to deliberately promote exactly the same kind of hatemongering online propaganda about Islam and Muslims that has caused the massacre in Norway. It really is utterly beneath contempt.

The references in the mainstream media to Breivik as a Christian terrorist are negligible. The main post on the subject so far here on Pickled Politics, refers to him as follows “Further exposure of mass murderer’s links to British far-right”

His references to historical Christian symbols and events seem to be part of his fantasy. He is not saying that Christian teachings justify his acts.

“There are no Christian precedents in modern times for what he has done.”

If this is “highly debatable” it would have been more useful to use your verbosity to say why rather than simply bad-mouth me. And, indeed, to say something about the Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities you referred to.

There are some Muslims who are highly critical of what some of their co-religionists do in the name of religion and their interpretation of Islam: for example, the recent assassination of the Pakistani minister (some Muslims rejoiced at this) for saying the Islamic law on blasphemy should be reviewed.

I wonder where these “critics” of “Islam” fit in your world where criticism of religion is deemed so wicked.

“I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. … It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.”

I think my previous comment may have got caught in a filter because it included a link (to the spittoon) so I’m just reposting this quote which shows that, even if Christianity is not so fundamental to his mission as Islam is to some Islamist terrorists, it is clearly fair enough to invoke his religion when discussing his crime.

“I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. … If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.”

In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to call a terrorist a Christian terrorist. Unless one objects to the term for the same reason that people may object to the term “Muslim terrorist” (as opposed to “Islamist terrorist”), in which case I suppose “Christianist terrorist” would be the appropriate equivalent. Of course, there are going to be people out there who will claim that Islamist terrorists are “real Muslims” whereas Christianist terrorists are “not real Christians”, but you know what agenda they’re pushing.

I’m glad things have moved on a bit in the last couple of days and there has been some better analysis.
This article by Unity has been cross posted on Harry’s Place and higlighted on Liberal Conspiracy.

robert spencer, pamela geller and the other preachers of hate like them are in hiding pity you didn’t take the hints.

It was breathtaking to see how way the media headlines changed from radicalized muslims influenced by internet videos and writings to a lone gunman one off incident nothing to do with Christianity and the right wing islamaphobic climate of fear and hate engulfing european society right now!

If you haven’t, do read the article that Damon links to. The author concludes that Breivik is best simply described as a “fascist”.

He references Bartholomew Notes on Religion saying “Richard Bartholomew is particularly good on the claim that the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, is a ‘Christian Fundamentalist’”

One of the key statements that Bartholomew makes is:

“ …. he hasn’t claimed to have been inspired by God or the Bible. He does appear obsessed with “Crusader” themed fetishism, but this is more likely to denote a shallow militaristic romanticism rather than any serious religious thinking.

I note also that Breivik listed some people that he had contact with as “Christian atheists”.

It is perfectly clear that Breivik has not used or tried to use “his” religion as a justification for his actions. Most Muslim terrorists do.